What does the Brady have that blue dome doesn't?

[jacobi]

So in comparing the two districts, what does that Brady have that blue dome doesn't?

A Place to live!  How many apt. Units are north of the tracks?  A whole lot!  And south? Zero!  Not a one.  Between the metro at Brady and and the mayo building there is one apt unit (in the mc auto hotel).  Now I know that there are a few on the way with pfox and Eliot nelsons projects, but this is a big problem.  A district cannot grow beyond a certain point (at least as far as density is concerned) as long as it is entirely based on commuter diners.  To start achieving real densities you have to have people living down there to support those places at lunch on a Saturday.  Unfortunately for the blue dome it seems that all the best lots for development are being sat on.

[ZYX]

There are apartments in the Phiiltower, but I get what you're saying. However, I think as downtown continues to develop, the walk from Brady to Blue Dome will seem to grow shorter. To bring up The Artist's point, when there are interesting things to walk past, people are wiling to walk farther. Even if they don't want to per se, they may do it without even noticing. I think that very, very soon, we will see the Brady and the Blue Dome be a contiguous district aside from their characteristic differences.

[custosnox]

We don't need living space every couple of blocks to make it viable, but we do need a good flow from district to district, and a real reason for people to go to said districts.

[Boksooner]

What would be nice would be more affordable living spaces. There are plenty of people that work downtown that can't afford $800-$1000 for a small one bedroom apartment. We would see a lot more people living downtown, if a developer could find a way to bring that price point down to the $500-$700 range.

[TheArtist]

  I bet if you made around 40-60 apartments in the 500-750 sq foot range, with no parking, you could get the price points down enough to make them more affordable to young urbanites.   You can lop off around 15% of your cost by leaving out parking.  I am hearing that a lot of cities are going this route and these apartments are being snapped up.  Have high ceilings in the living area of these small apartments and they can feel quite spacious. Plus these kinds of developments, provided they are pedestrian friendly and tied into the streetscape, are really great for helping to build up your transit and that pedestrian energy.   

[dbacks fan]

  I bet if you made around 40-60 apartments in the 500-750 sq foot range, with no parking, you could get the price points down enough to make them more affordable to young urbanites.   You can lop off around 15% of your cost by leaving out parking.  I am hearing that a lot of cities are going this route and these apartments are being snapped up.  Have high ceilings in the living area of these small apartments and they can feel quite spacious. Plus these kinds of developments, provided they are pedestrian friendly and tied into the streetscape, are really great for helping to build up your transit and that pedestrian energy.   

I saw the following on the new the other night and it kind of follows in with what you are saying artist. I realize there is a huge difference between Tulsa and Seattle and the parking is different in both cities, but when you brought up cost savings buy eliminating parking it made me want to share. The estimate in Seatle for parking as part of a building is 20%.

http://www.king5.com/video?id=143963816&sec=548902

[TheArtist]

I saw the following on the new the other night and it kind of follows in with what you are saying artist. I realize there is a huge difference between Tulsa and Seattle and the parking is different in both cities, but when you brought up cost savings buy eliminating parking it made me want to share. The estimate in Seatle for parking as part of a building is 20%.

http://www.king5.com/video?id=143963816&sec=548902

Interesting, they currently require a minimum of about half the units to have parking.  I don't think we have minimum parking requirements in our downtown am I right?  And I wonder if many of our developments have less than 1 parking space per unit?   But what was sad, and I admit I have not been to Seattle, is that every spot they showed in the video and what was said to be around transit stops,,, was that the streetscapes and new buildings were not pedestrian friendly.  Matter of fact, what I saw looked absolutely horrid.   I am sure they have great spots in their downtown.  But again, it points out we could gain a very competitive, attractive edge by making sure we create a superb, pedestrian friendly core.  We could once again be called the NYC of the Midwest.  It's simply a matter of choosing the pedestrian over the car in this one tiny area of the city.

[Red Arrow]

What would be nice would be more affordable living spaces. There are plenty of people that work downtown that can't afford $800-$1000 for a small one bedroom apartment. We would see a lot more people living downtown, if a developer could find a way to bring that price point down to the $500-$700 range.

I'm sure the data exists but I haven't seen it for age of structure vs. affordability.  A breakdown of this info by major livable city would be nice information.  I've asked before about whether older housing existed in Tulsa that would now be "affordable" and the answer is that it was mostly torn down.  Perhaps it was beyond repair even for the "affordable" crowd.

[erfalf]

Interesting, they currently require a minimum of about half the units to have parking.  I don't think we have minimum parking requirements in our downtown am I right?  And I wonder if many of our developments have less than 1 parking space per unit?   But what was sad, and I admit I have not been to Seattle, is that every spot they showed in the video and what was said to be around transit stops,,, was that the streetscapes and new buildings were not pedestrian friendly.  Matter of fact, what I saw looked absolutely horrid.   I am sure they have great spots in their downtown.  But again, it points out we could gain a very competitive, attractive edge by making sure we create a superb, pedestrian friendly core.  We could once again be called the NYC of the Midwest.  It's simply a matter of choosing the pedestrian over the car in this one tiny area of the city.

I like your idea about removing parking requirements (I actually don't know what they are in Tulsa). Not to be pessimistic, bu I am seeing some possible unintended consequences. Don't get me wrong I think builders should be able to build office/retail/residential with zero parking. Do you think removing this restriction will just cause the value of existing parking to just keep going up, making it even less likely that alot of those surface lots will get converted into something else (aside from structured parking that is)?

I just look at the buildings downtown and think that all the great ones had no parking in mind. Course I understand cars weren't near as prevalent as today but still, they didn't have to worry about it. And look how it worked out 75/100 years later. They are still some of the most desirable buildings (based on location) REGARDLESS of off street parking. This is evidence enough to me that parking requirements are antiquated ideas.

Think of it this way, let's use the Metro @ Brady. The developer is passing those parking costs on to the tenants, ALL of the tenants. Why not completely bypass the whole parking mess and let the tenant deal with it. In my opinion, it saves those that are trying to go car-less even more money.

[erfalf]

Personal experience only, but in Fort Worth they have several examples of new development with no parking.

Now keep in mind only Sundance West is newer construction.

Sundance West - 12 story 59 apartments
Sanger Lofts - 5 story 59 apartments (converted department store)
Historic Electric Building - 19 story/106 apartments (converted office building)
Houston Place Lofts 8 story/29 apartments (converted office)
The Neil P. - 11 story/57 condo units (converted office)
The Tower - 37 story/315 condo units (converted office, this one was hit hard by the tornado)
T&P Railway Terminal - 12 story/condo units (converted terminal warehouse)

So in those alone (there may be more) there are 760 residential units alone with no parking included. I can't tell you how many sq ft of purely office space has been constructed over the last 20 years there as well. However, there have been several garages constructed as well.

I'm not saying that parking isn't needed in downtown environments, but we should be requiring developers include it. The market will react to it.

I guess you could include the new Omni Hotel (34 story/604 rooms/97 condos) but the city built a garage right across the street that serves it and the convention center, but no parking in the structure itself, so the Omni doesn't own the parking.

[custosnox]

Interesting, they currently require a minimum of about half the units to have parking.  I don't think we have minimum parking requirements in our downtown am I right?  And I wonder if many of our developments have less than 1 parking space per unit?   But what was sad, and I admit I have not been to Seattle, is that every spot they showed in the video and what was said to be around transit stops,,, was that the streetscapes and new buildings were not pedestrian friendly.  Matter of fact, what I saw looked absolutely horrid.   I am sure they have great spots in their downtown.  But again, it points out we could gain a very competitive, attractive edge by making sure we create a superb, pedestrian friendly core.  We could once again be called the NYC of the Midwest.  It's simply a matter of choosing the pedestrian over the car in this one tiny area of the city.

I personally found Seattle fairly pedestrian friendly.  Not as much so as cities in the Northeast, but it puts Tulsa to shame.  But more so, the transit system there is excellent, especially if you have a smart phone.  I never waited more than 10 minutes for a bus, and it didn't take me anymore than 20 to get somewhere.  Granted I didn't venture too far from downtown, but Tulsa Transit takes hours for an equal distance. 

[jacobi]

I personally found Seattle fairly pedestrian friendly.  Not as much so as cities in the Northeast, but it puts Tulsa to shame.  But more so, the transit system there is excellent, especially if you have a smart phone.  I never waited more than 10 minutes for a bus, and it didn't take me anymore than 20 to get somewhere.  Granted I didn't venture too far from downtown, but Tulsa Transit takes hours for an equal distance.

My expereicn3e there was about the same.  I was only there for a few days, but the transit was excellent (+ bike lanes!).  There were definitely some parts of the city that weren't ped friendly (Think south brookside) but the transit was ood enough that it was no big deal.

As per affordablilty: If you didn't need to have a car, how much money would you save a month by paying $200 more for an apt?  You could walk or ride your bike everywhere or take a taxi or bus if it's too far.  You would be healthier and wealthier (and wise).  With gas prices going the way they are it seems clear to me that owning a car is a loosing investment.  Now with that comes a need for better masstrans.  We should give priority of seed money (in future of course) to projects that have no parking.

[custosnox]

My expereicn3e there was about the same.  I was only there for a few days, but the transit was excellent (+ bike lanes!).  There were definitely some parts of the city that weren't ped friendly (Think south brookside) but the transit was ood enough that it was no big deal.

As per affordablilty: If you didn't need to have a car, how much money would you save a month by paying $200 more for an apt?  You could walk or ride your bike everywhere or take a taxi or bus if it's too far.  You would be healthier and wealthier (and wise).  With gas prices going the way they are it seems clear to me that owning a car is a loosing investment.  Now with that comes a need for better masstrans.  We should give priority of seed money (in future of course) to projects that have no parking.

How did I forget about the bike lanes?  You could tell that the people in cars knew how to react to bikers.

[Red Arrow]

You could tell that the people in cars knew how to react to bikers.

10 points for each one.  Pedestrians are 5 points each, easier to hit.

First driver to 100 wins.

  (Just kidding)

[Conan71]

You'll never eliminate parking en masse in Tulsa. 

Yeah, but at least we no longer have to worry about Steve Kitchell's henchmen knee-capping people who park downtown